Jump to content

Talk:Albert Ball

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAlbert Ball is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 7, 2014.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed
October 22, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
November 3, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 7, 2021.
Current status: Featured article


Wording queried at FAC

[edit]

Putting more detail here about the wording that was queried at the FAC. The sentence in question (towards the end of the 'Second fighter posting' section) currently reads: "After the last of these victims nearly rammed him in a head-on firing pass, Ball anxiously flew his seriously damaged plane home.". I've dug through the editing history and located when this sentence was added and modified (apologies for the length of this, but I think it is important to be clear what happened here and how easy it is to inadvertently change meaning without intending to):

This sort of gradual changing of the text to the extent that the original meaning was lost is not good. I'm pinging George, Ian and Dank (as the three who made those edits) to get their views on this (Dank, George has said more about this back at the FAC, and I think that shows that the change you made did need checking and does need reverting, would you agree?). Correcting this one is easily done, I'm more concerned about whether this is an isolated case, or should spot checks of the other citations be done to ensure they are accurate, both for page numbers and for phrasing? I think some of Dank's other copy-edits had 'please check' in the edit summary - has anyone been checking those? I think the only other one is this one, which looks fine to me, but George or Ian may be better placed to assess that change. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I searched the FAR feedback for unanswered questions about cites, and found only the above example. Neverthess, I have begun to check all the cites I can, beginning with Pengelly.

I also regard the near-ramming two days before Ball's death as consequential. Because of that, I am copying over my observations about the incident. From the FAR page for Ball:

(iii) Okay, I have corrected the page numbers within the Bowyer cite.

(iii) Either term above would be British understatement to a fault. Ball was temporarily blinded by oil spraying from a holed tank, and left flying helplessly with an engine about to seize.

(iii) After landing, Ball could not at first dictate his combat report because he "...was in so overwrought a state...." After thanking God, Ball admitted he thought a dying German pilot might ram him.

(iii) The squadron's Recording Officer, Lieutenant T. B. Marson, remarked, "In that event, his nerve failed him in the last."

I do believe the incident deserves more ink than it has received, but the mere recitation of events makes it sound a lot like "peacocking".

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ball's grave

[edit]

Copying out here the text of the source:

  • Gibson; Kingsley Ward. 'Victoria Cross and George Cross recipients who died in the war periods'. Courage Remembered. p. 173:

    "His father [...] wanted his son's remains to be repatriated but, by then, repatriation had been forbidden. Hearing this, Sir Albert insisted that his son's grave be undisturbed and, when the remains of the other 23 Britons were moved to Cabaret Rouge British Cemetery, Souchez, his wishes were respected."

That is the justification for the 'His father [...] to remain' text added here. What is there in the 'Bowyer. Albert Ball VC. pp. 227–228' source that justifies the removal of "His father wanted the remains brought back to England for reburial, but the policy put in place by the Imperial War Graves Commission meant that this was not possible"? Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, this article has had a huge number of edits since you got involved in it and I can't check every one. I actually had no recollection of who added that info or when and, as I couldn't access the source to check and it seemed to contradict the claim that Ball Sr wanted the grave left undisturbed and Bowyer didn't mention it, I felt we could afford to lose it. Now that you've vouched for it and provided the actual info, which offers some clarification of why Ball first wanted repatriation and then wanted the grave left undisturbed, I don't have an issue with it being returned (although I still find it curious Bowyer doesn't highlight it). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

What about using the Sfn template (hyperlinked last names & year numbers) instead of last names & titles? Thus the references will be linked to the respective bibliography entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.0.159 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start adding reference anchors in the Bibliography titles (ref = harv), and then converting current references to Sfn (last names and year numbers). Should I take the current silence as agreement?
― Lgfcd 22:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Remembering that most people don't stay up 24 hours straight, and interested parties may be on the opposite side of the world to you, I wouldn't take less than a day's silence as tacit agreement to do anything on WP... :-) The earlier ref=harv additions to the references caused Harv errors to appear, I assume because the job was not done properly. Now I don't use the Sfn/harv citation method myself as I think it's too easy to do badly, or to break when it's been done properly, but I'm just one of the main editors on this article and certainly don't own it, so if you'd like to the job thoroughly, from top to bottom, it doesn't worry me particularly, though some of the other main editors may have an opinion. Per your question on my talk page as to how I knew there were formatting errors, many editors including myself have installed this script to highlight such problems in red, and it highlighted all the references as in error after the earlier change. So if you get agreement to pursue this ref change, I'd definitely install the script yourself so you can see how you're going... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, the article reports unused anchors as errors. That is, in itself, an error. The anchors are not errors; they are just infrastructure. Please do not act on such reports unless you understand why they were raised.
— [Lgfcd 00:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This was a Featured Article on the main page of Wikipedia, and anyone using that script would see the errors. Pls do not use the anchors unless you do the entire job, and have consensus to change the citation style in the first place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to use a script that flags unused anchors as errors in entirely arbitrary. The error is in the script.
― Lgfcd 13:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the many people whose find the script helpful may not agree with you, but you could always start a discussion on its talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is the right thing to do.
― Lgfcd 19:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, now the silence is conspicuous. How should silence be interpreted?
― Lgfcd 12:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well it certainly shouldn't be interpreted as consensus to change the citation style for this article -- all of the main editors and the reviewers who saw it through GAN, MilHist ACR and FAC appear to have been happy enough with the current method. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sad.
— 191.176.96.102 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Ball&oldid=1222851791"